In another thread we were discussing charitable giving as a method of poverty reduction vs. government social programs. Something like that. RickyP mentioned Sweden's success in reducing poverty. I say "bravo" for Sweden. Can the US emulate them?

In examining the differences between the USA and Sweden, one thing stands out a lot more than differences in how we go about trying to use government to solve the problem of poverty. (We both have Social Security, medical insurance for the poor, unemployment insurance, and so on.) The USA has a huge military; Sweden does not. Militaries are expensive. I quote myself from the other thread:

Sweden spends 1.2% of GDP on its military; the US spends 4.7%. If the USA dropped down to Swedish levels, we could afford to send every poor man, woman and child in America (based on the 15% poverty rate) a check for $11,328 each and every year.*

According to HHS, the poverty level for a single person living alone is $11,170. For a family of four it's $23,050. If the USA dropped military spending to Sweden's level we could easily bring every single American out of poverty.

*Check my math, folks: 15% of 311,591,000 population, then divide that into military spending of $711 billion, then multiply by 3.5 over 4.7 to adjust to Swedish levels. Did I do that right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... penditures

I really didn't expect quite so dramatic an outcome when I started that computation.

DEBATE THIS QUESTION: Would it be worth radically cutting the US defense budget if, thereby, we could stop Ricky from bragging on the wonders of Sweden?

...oh, and also solve poverty while we're at it?

Not bragging. I'm not Swedish.

I'll note that another alternative to cutting military expenditure would be the adoption of the Swedish health care system, which is far more cost effective than the US's.
it would immediately effect poverty rates, and improve the lives of those who are poor. (The US spends 17% of GDP on health care. Sweden 9 or 10%)

But as you said elsewhere, its about priorities. IS a large military a necessity? I think it is for the US, and the West right now. Sweden has maintained a neutrality that they've benfitted from over time, but they haven't often contributed to Western security..
However The US military could probably be quire effective without a lot of the the major weapons systems (how many carriers are required?) and the boondoggles in military spending are legend. Eisenhower warned about the military inudstrial complex and the way it would scare people into over spending . He should be listened to.
The US wouldn't be the first nation to have to curtail military spending in order to feed the home front. An austerity program starting with the military would probably wring efficiencies out of the system that would be amazing.

I don't know about yall' but send me my $11,328 check right now! In a serious tone, I think spending money to make sure that everyone gets the basics (food, shelter, education, health care) should come before spending all of this unnecessary money on the military.

I'll be the first (if I don't cross-post) to reply to my question. Yes, let's take the next ten to twenty years to slowly cut defense spending to half or a third of current levels relative to GDP.

I am proud that America was able, in the aftermath of WWII, to meet and contain the Soviets. I was a big fan of Reagan's military buildup. But it's time now to face up to two huge changes in the world: 1) the Cold War is over and there is no longer an absolute existential need for a liberal Western democratic superpower - it has gone from being a necessity to a luxury; and 2) the USA no longer enjoys the structural advantages upon which our remarkable postwar prosperity were based; we now compete economically with the rest of the world on a more or less level playing field.

During the Cold War my philosophy was that the USA should do whatever it needed to in order to maintain its ability to deter Soviet expansionism over the long term. When we saw Sputnik and realized we needed to throw a lot of money at places like MIT, we did so. Good. When we saw that our choice in some Latin American country was between a pro-Soviet leftist and some a-hole of a fascist who would resist revolution, we held our noses and made the choice that seemed essential at the time. When LBJ faced the contradiction between fighting in Vietnam and fully implementing his Great Society, even he, though it crushed him, knew there was really no choice.

We spent all that money and made all those sacrifices in order - and I'm not being flippant here - to make the world safe for democracy. We succeeded. Europe is neither fascist or communist, and it's safe from both. Japan is under no real threat from China. Democracies are, if not flourishing, at least doing much better than the alternatives in Africa and South America. And with the Arab Spring we're even seeing that some of the least likely places for democracy in the world are headed that way. As for the USA: we face no real threats from any conventional military. We never really did. Only two countries still represent threats that have to be deterred by a strong military: Iran and North Korea. Both are becoming more and more isolated. Terrorism is a different sort of threat, and it's becoming more and more apparent that a huge conventional military is not terribly useful in combating it.

It's time for Making the World Safe for Democracy - Phase Two. We will still have by far the strongest military in the world and be able to respond - a bit slower - to emergencies. We'll probably have more and better allies. Germany and Japan, for instance, are both ready now to take a more active role in joint military endeavors. And once we are less of such an overwhelming military beast (as seen by just about everyone else!) it will be easier for us to do even better in our more peaceful international projects. We've been very active in this sphere since WWII but the efforts have been so overshadowed by the military that they've not gotten much attention or support. We've done some amazing things around the world in the areas of agriculture, health, infrastructure, education, etc. We could do more. And I don't think our best days are necessarily behind us when it comes to being a beacon of democracy; being less militarily inclined will only brighten that beacon.

Such "soft" power seems awfully amorphous and unreliable compared to a Carrier Task Force, but that's because we insist on categorizing it as "power". It's not. It's influence, and a different kind of influence than we gain by having bombers that can take off from Kansas and drop precise munitions on Tehran. The USA was influential worldwide when our military ranked very, very low on the list of world militaries. I think we can be again. In fact, I believe that to some extent our reliance on a super-sized military impedes our ability to be influential in the indirect long-term hearts-and-minds way. I think that once we no longer have a super-sized military we will find that our citizens are tremendously creative and resourceful in other ways.

Remember: ten to twenty years. And we'll still have six or seven aircraft carriers (instead of twenty).

If Freeman2 gets his check for the military, can I have mine for the social programs? I am sure that would be fine.

Then again this is not an issue of one side giving all, and the other not being cut at all.

Military is too damn big, it's a self-perpetuating beast. Local economies need the new ships/planes/bases, politicians fight to keep them to keep their districts happy, the military needs people to use these new systems and places to put them, and 9/11 gave them cover to keep the engine running.

Years ago we talked about BRAC (Base Realignment and Closure) and cashing in on the peace dividend. All that fell off the radar screen on 9/11/2001, and too often more military is considered the same as the right military for our current world and the two may very well be different things.

I hold out hope that a technocrat like Romney would see the shocking waste of our current system and work to re-engineer it, right size it to our current world environment. Yes, I know I live in a fantasy world.

Purple wrote:It's time for Making the World Safe for Democracy - Phase Two.

Nice post. But how does the US transition from where we are now to Phase Two? So many interests in keeping a large, conventional military, its hard to see that happening.

Geo,
Would you be happier with the military being smaller, and the despots around the world being handled by another power? I certainly would as well.

Then again, I would love to see social AND military budgets cut by 20%.

b

Would you be happier with the military being smaller, and the despots around the world being handled by another power? I certainly would as well.

According to "A Dictators Learning Curve" 2 out of 3 non-violent liberation movements have been successful in eliminating dictators.
Only one out of 3 violent liberation movements have been successful.
The US military has contributed to the end of dictators in only two recent conflicts. Libya, in alimites fashion. . and Iraq. In the post WWII world, the influence of US Military has actually propped up dictators far more often than helped democratic movements flourish.
The fact is B, that the despots around the world that are left, and whom aren't being propped up with US military assistance, are in danger from their own citizens far more than from anyone else.

The problem isn't despots it's other powers. Can an argument be made that other nations, like Sweden, are able to spend so little on Defense because they know the U.S. is there to stop them? Now I am not saying this will happen but isn't the most likely outcome of the U.S. step back from Super Power status a return to the Great Powers Real Politik like most of modern history?

Archduke Russell John wrote:The problem isn't despots it's other powers. Can an argument be made that other nations, like Sweden, are able to spend so little on Defense because they know the U.S. is there to stop them? Now I am not saying this will happen but isn't the most likely outcome of the U.S. step back from Super Power status a return to the Great Powers Real Politik like most of modern history?

Recently there have been intense discussions among the US and the ASEAN countries relative to China's influence. China has territorial disputes with the Philipines, India, Vietnam, Japan and other countries in the region. These countries are all looking to the US for support. Taiwan and South Korea are also paritcularly appreciative of US defense spending.

Finally, the peope of Syria continually look to US support in the wake of Russia and Iran supporting the Assad regime.

I'm sure there is excess waste in military spending. But let's not throw away the baby with the bath water.

Archduke:

Can an argument be made that other nations, like Sweden, are able to spend so little on Defense because they know the U.S. is there to stop them?

Yes. But it also sounds more like an excuse for excessive military spending than a reason.
Why should the US bear the brunt of the defence of Germany or Sweden or Canada and spend more per GDP because of the perceived need to put every ally under an unpenetrable umbrella?
It might be, that if the US spent according to a more limited goal, that its allies would spend more but I doubt it... I think that the Military/Industrial Complex has sold the country on a package that it doesn't really need.

Arch

Now I am not saying this will happen but isn't the most likely outcome of the U.S. step back from Super Power status a return to the Great Powers Real Politik like most of modern history?

The world is a lot more interconnected than ever before. Becasue of this the set piece way of looking at the world stage is not complex enough to consider all the parameters that would involve a military conflict.
The potential sizable threats to the US are China and ? Russia, India?
China's largest customer and business partner is the US. Its elite (the Communist Party) are busy doling out improvements to the growing middle class and workers in order to stay in power. If the material benefits ever falter, their control will falter. Risking a disruption of a serious business relationship would take a very large scale issue...
Russia is wholly dependent on energy exports for an economy now... Go to war with western Europe? Not on.
India? I can't imagine this...

freeman2 wrote:I don't know about yall' but send me my $11,328 check right now! In a serious tone, I think spending money to make sure that everyone gets the basics (food, shelter, education, health care) should come before spending all of this unnecessary money on the military.

Leaving aside the military, would you say the same thing anyway?

In other words, should the government guarantee a level of food, shelter, education, health care (clothing, high-speed Internet, and other necessities)?

Dr. Fate: with all due respect, that's changing the subject. (We are specifically NOT leaving the military aside in this discussion.) In any case, it's pretty obvious you and Freeman2 are going to disagree about the proper role of government.

I am, however, curious about how you would answer the question I posed in the opening post: Would it be worth radically cutting the US defense budget if, thereby, we could... solve poverty (in the USA)?

Purple wrote:Dr. Fate: with all due respect, that's changing the subject. (We are specifically NOT leaving the military aside in this discussion.) In any case, it's pretty obvious you and Freeman2 are going to disagree about the proper role of government.

I am, however, curious about how you would answer the question I posed in the opening post: Would it be worth radically cutting the US defense budget if, thereby, we could... solve poverty (in the USA)?

No.

1. We can't solve it.

2. The military cuts needed would open a power vacuum not seen since WW2. Some country will fill it.